Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Since logically speaking, all knowledge and wisdom are dependant on God, then an atheist by definition is one who lacks knowledge and wisdom since they deny God's "existence" (or lack of believe crap from George Smith).

Now, as a result, the atheist has no answer for the following.

Knowledge (no way to know

Reality (No way to know reality

Ethics (No way to know right or wrong

Art (No way to know what art is.)

This is why Postmodern atheism has crept into our culture like regarding Duchamp on art that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Or on ethics, "To each their own." Or regarding knowledge "all is relative, there are no absolutes.

With the death of Karl Popper (1994), philosophy died. I ought to qualify. Secular atheistic philosophy died by trying to find a way around these things without being Christian.

Thus we see a consistent atheist is one that is ruthless. Hates everybody including himself. Kills people. Kills his family and children. Is basically somebody who is mentally insane.

However, it is very rare to find a consistent atheist. Nietche was somewhat consistent. Though he is branded an Existialist, He is an atheist Existialist. His sister sold tickets to the public towards the end of his life to see how crazy he was.

A Nietche at the end of his life is consistent (pretty close). But the closest atheists I can think of would be a Hitler or a Mao or Stalin. A real evil people.

But most atheists like yourself are very very inconsistent. They are like Dan Barker, and they steal from Christianity regarding ethics (and everything else).

More could be said, but I think you get that point. I hope you're not consistent.

Though it would be nice if more atheists were consistent so people could see atheist for it's true self.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

What happen? Cat get your tongue? Now tell me, if I'm wrong, why did Dan Barker steal Christian thinking to substitute his atheism? Remember, he use to be a music pastor.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Since logically speaking, all knowledge and wisdom are dependant on God, then an atheist by definition is one who lacks knowledge and wisdom since they deny God's "existence" (or lack of believe crap from George Smith). Not true. Wisdom and knowledge are possessions of the human mind that exist with or without a belief in god.

Now, as a result, the atheist has no answer for the following.

Knowledge (no way to know

Reality (No way to know reality

Ethics (No way to know right or wrong

Art (No way to know what art is.)

Knowledge is an accumulation of information

Reality is how the mind perceives this information

Ethics is a tool used by humans to form cohesive societies

Art is totally subjective to all of the above.

Quote:

This is why Postmodern atheism has crept into our culture like regarding Duchamp on art that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Or on ethics, "To each their own." Or regarding knowledge "all is relative, there are no absolutes.

With the death of Karl Popper (1994), philosophy died. I ought to qualify. Secular atheistic philosophy died by trying to find a way around these things without being Christian.

Don't know enough about this to argue with it.

Quote:

Thus we see a consistent atheist is one that is ruthless. Hates everybody including himself. Kills people. Kills his family and children. Is basically somebody who is mentally insane.

Eh. Quite a few religious folk fall into this category as well.

Quote:

However, it is very rare to find a consistent atheist. Nietche was somewhat consistent. Though he is branded an Existialist, He is an atheist Existialist. His sister sold tickets to the public towards the end of his life to see how crazy he was.

His sister was an entrepreneur.

Quote:

A Nietche at the end of his life is consistent (pretty close). But the closest atheists I can think of would be a Hitler or a Mao or Stalin. A real evil people.

Oh, I don't know. There were some pretty evil religious folk mentioned in the bible.... and in existence before and after the printing of the bible.

Quote:

But most atheists like yourself are very very inconsistent. They are like Dan Barker, and they steal from Christianity regarding ethics (and everything else).

I don't know Dan. As for stealing ethics from christianity... slavery, incest, adultery, murder, greed, lust, vengeance, etc...all condoned by your god, is nothing to be proud of... and not worth stealing. There are basic 'good' concepts in the bible but, they were not invented by christians and existed long before it was written.

Quote:

More could be said, but I think you get that point. I hope you're not consistent.

Though it would be nice if more atheists were consistent so people could see atheist for it's true self.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The reason there are not more 'consistent' atheists is because being an atheist is not a requirement of being a degenerate person. In fact, I would be interested in seeing a comparison between criminal backgrounds of atheists and those of followers of religion.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

"all is relativie there is no absolute truth." AND "to each there own."

So you are really contradictive. But that's okay. It's kind of normal.

The whole era of philosophy was regarding knowledge. The attempt was to try to show a way to know universals WITHOUT God (as the Infinite Reference Point).

Da Vinci Tried to do this with mathematics. The majority of his career was this. He failed. The entire 2500 years reign of philosophy failed, and Christianity stands.

But, you try to redefine things, and to each his own, so what, right?

Since atheism has yet to find a way to go from the particualrs to the universals via empiricism (the choice of the day), then they are an old lady that has fallen and can't get up.

If knowledge is the accumalation of information, then by what mode of knowing do you relate the pieces of information via the universal(s)? This must be done to know

Perception is the inference of observation. But since space and time are non empirical, by what mode of space and time shall you perceive the object correctly? Hume didn't know and became a Skeptic. There is no answer

Thus you admit that your ethics is subject. Thus if you lived on an Island that was yours, you could do whatever since ethics would then be non-existent.

Art of course you view as subjective. This is not Christian. As a Chrisitian, there is objectivity to art.

Thus you've demonstated why atheism is dead.

Religious folks are nutty nuts too. For one to be actual, they must be saved by the real Jesus via the real gospel as reflected in Scripture. if they are a pagan ROman Catholic or Mormon, they are just as bad as you.

It wasn't incest before the law. Genes were more pure and not as decayed. After the law, incest was a sin. So you are misrepresenting history

Slavery was like employment often times. But Dan is honest about stealing and not havin anything to go on as an atheist. You ought to be honest to.

Yes, an atheist is not required. But their nature is evil. God holds them back. If an atheist were to be evil, he woudl have he desire to do the most foul things imagineable.

The God you hate (deny) you ought to thank since He holds you back from more wickedness that is capable from you.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

"all is relativie there is no absolute truth." AND "to each there own."

So you are really contradictive. But that's okay. It's kind of normal.

The whole era of philosophy was regarding knowledge. The attempt was to try to show a way to know universals WITHOUT God (as the Infinite Reference Point).

Da Vinci Tried to do this with mathematics. The majority of his career was this. He failed. The entire 2500 years reign of philosophy failed, and Christianity stands.

But, you try to redefine things, and to each his own, so what, right?

Since atheism has yet to find a way to go from the particualrs to the universals via empiricism (the choice of the day), then they are an old lady that has fallen and can't get up.

If knowledge is the accumalation of information, then by what mode of knowing do you relate the pieces of information via the universal(s)? This must be done to know

Perception is the inference of observation. But since space and time are non empirical, by what mode of space and time shall you perceive the object correctly? Hume didn't know and became a Skeptic. There is no answer

Thus you admit that your ethics is subject. Thus if you lived on an Island that was yours, you could do whatever since ethics would then be non-existent.

Art of course you view as subjective. This is not Christian. As a Chrisitian, there is objectivity to art.

Thus you've demonstated why atheism is dead.

Religious folks are nutty nuts too. For one to be actual, they must be saved by the real Jesus via the real gospel as reflected in Scripture. if they are a pagan ROman Catholic or Mormon, they are just as bad as you.

It wasn't incest before the law. Genes were more pure and not as decayed. After the law, incest was a sin. So you are misrepresenting history

Slavery was like employment often times. But Dan is honest about stealing and not havin anything to go on as an atheist. You ought to be honest to.

Yes, an atheist is not required. But their nature is evil. God holds them back. If an atheist were to be evil, he woudl have he desire to do the most foul things imagineable.

The God you hate (deny) you ought to thank since He holds you back from more wickedness that is capable from you.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Quote:

Thus you admit that your ethics is subject. Thus if you lived on an Island that was yours, you could do whatever since ethics would then be non-existent.

Yes, ethics are subjective to the will of the members of a society. No different than those in your book before and after 'the law'.

In essence, I do live on an island where I can do whatever. There are no laws in my home or in my yard, other than those of Nature, and somehow I manage to enjoy peaceful, uneventful days and nights without running amok, killing animals, burning down trees or, running through the yard naked and screaming. My behavior is no different when I leave my island.

Quote:

Yes, an atheist is not required. But their nature is evil. God holds them back. If an atheist were to be evil, he woudl have he desire to do the most foul things imagineable.

God holds them back? For what purpose? What about the ones who do evil, god allows evil when he can prevent it? Does he remove free will from the atheist who wants to do evil?

Hmmm. I think you messed up here.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

I understand your position since you are an atheist. But I've been arguing this since I got here. A consistent atheist is a screw up. They have no morals.

Dan Barker from FFRF says he BORROWS the morals from Christianity (more like steals). Which demonstates that atheism is an empty void of nothing. It's like Nietche nihilism.

Now, I speak of consistent atheists. This actually makes me sad. But it is my argument and Jimmy is the 2nd example on here to demonstate my point.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Okay, Jean, I'll bite.

1) What's the difference between a 'consistent atheist' and an atheist?

2) What makes you think that atheists borrow their morals from christianity?

How does it feel to be a "Screw up Sandy"? Wait, don't you own your own business? WAIT, that would make you commit the sin of gluttony. WAIT, I am not a business owner so I am a screw up too because I am poor, so that makes me a commie who hates America. He has an answer for both of us. PURE BRILLIANCE!

You cant argue with that logic. But since you are a business owner, AND an atheist, that makes you a rich Commie.

He's got us Sandy. WELL, he would have us if we bought into his comic book delusion.

The last person who had the power to demonize an entire label of people via government got his ass handed to him.

And he doesn't even realize how much more his view of his own sky daddy has with Hitler.

You and I are atheists and merely based on that, we could be law abiding, or own businesses and never harm a single person our entire lives, and our education level doesn't matter. The fact we don't buy into his god is the only thing that matters.

And the only thing that mattered to Hitler was killing all Jews because they were not Germans, just like God is going to beat the shit out of anyone who doesn't kiss his ass.

Japan is soooo lucky to have such a loving god that doesn't "spare the rod".

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Since logically speaking, all knowledge and wisdom are dependant on God, then an atheist by definition is one who lacks knowledge and wisdom since they deny God's "existence" (or lack of believe crap from George Smith).

Even if this is true, it is not necessarily a requirement for having knowledge. One cannot leap from "right now, the sky is blue" to, "a god exists!" That's non-sequitur if I haven't seen it. So you have a false dichotomy there.

And atheists don't necessarily deny god's existence... insisting that this is the definition of atheism is bad.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

A Nietche at the end of his life is consistent (pretty close). But the closest atheists I can think of would be a Hitler or a Mao or Stalin. A real evil people.

Hitler wasn't an atheist... But Muhammad was a theist, and he got his jollies from having sex with little girls and killing people.

In any case, just because one is from a particular ideology does not make that ideology evil. That's a genetic fallacy.

Jean... you really like to make fallacious arguments.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

God holds back the evil you are capable of for a time. He actually held back Mao and Hitler since they could have done much worse.

He will remove His hand soon enough. His hand is holding you up from the pit. The hand you bite, deny, and hate. He will remove His hand while you fall to your torment.

But Sandy, thanks for being honest. Since your ethics is subjective, then your ethics is not objective. So your ethics may differ from Answers in Genesis ethics who is a Satanist.

So you can really do whatever you want. Your immoral lifestyle is not accountable to God (so you think).

______________

Hey Red,

I knew a Satanist when I was a kid who was into SRA and hardcore drugs. She could not comprehend because her braincells were dieing off. I got a chance to witness to her. She was MPD/DID.

As I said before, one cannot rationalize with the irrational. I asked you several times various specific questions, and you just told me your position (which I already know). This is absuridty.

And since you couldn't even get off the ground with your own worldview, you are like an aborted fetus. You like abortion don't you sicko.

Anyway, you are like an aborted fetus who has'nt been born. Thus you were utterly destroyed by me and I barely lifted my pinky.

That's why I offered you to do a 3rd debate to redeem your humilated defeat. This time, you can drill me with questions, and I won't switch the burden on you. We can make it a little more challenging then the twig of my pinky.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3)

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

But Sandy, thanks for being honest. Since your ethics is subjective, then your ethics is not objective. So your ethics may differ from Answers in Genesis ethics who is a Satanist.

So you can really do whatever you want. Your immoral lifestyle is not accountable to God (so you think).

I hold myself accountable for my lifestyle choices. I don't need an invisible, imaginary being to determine what actions produce beneficial results and which do not. Religious folk, on the other hand, need a perpetual daddy-figure to keep them in line. The biblical law was written for those who don't know right from wrong, not the rest of us who do.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

I asked you several times various specific questions, and you just told me your position (which I already know).

Then why ask the question. stoopid?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

This is absuridty.

That's my line...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

you are like an aborted fetus.

You're like a bowel movement.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You like abortion don't you sicko.

You must be french. Your syntax in english, is just like a french Quebec'r.

But, if you want to know my feelings on abortion, they're the same as on Capital punishment. I don't sympathize with a fetus, more that I do the woman, and I don't sympathize with cold blooded killers, rapists, and child molesters at all. They're inhuman.

Oh, and I should add that I'm all for euthanasia as well. I understand that they're debating it in Quebec.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

you were utterly destroyed by me and I barely lifted my pinky.

It would be self evident if you did. Just imagining something to be true.......never mind....

Jean Chauvin wrote:

That's why I offered you to do a 3rd debate to redeem your humilated defeat. This time, you can drill me with questions, and I won't switch the burden on you. We can make it a little more challenging then the twig of my pinky.

We still have two 1 on 1 debates that you're AWOL on, so stop posturing...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

But even if there was a God for the sake of argument, you wouldn't trust Him anyway right? How you answer this question is philosophically a big deal.

You daddy in the sky thing is ad hominem. He is in the heavens. God is infinite and eternal.

Anyway, you made my point exactly. With Christianity, you have:

Philosophy

Science

Art

Ethics

etc.

With atheism, since all is subjective, including your perspective on reality which is an inference of your subjective observation, thus atheism is like the story of the king where everything he touches turns to gold. But with atheism, everything atheism touches turns to death.

Postmodernism is the age of atheism (well, that may need to be qualifed). It's the apathy of thought.

If there is no objective universal, then no knowledge can take place. For knowledge is fixed. If ones knowledge is not fixed but is flux (atheism), then how do we know that today's truth is not tomorrows lie.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

But even if there was a God for the sake of argument, you wouldn't trust Him anyway right? How you answer this question is philosophically a big deal.

You daddy in the sky thing is ad hominem. He is in the heavens. God is infinite and eternal.

Anyway, you made my point exactly. With Christianity, you have:

Philosophy

Science

Art

Ethics

etc.

With atheism, since all is subjective, including your perspective on reality which is an inference of your subjective observation, thus atheism is like the story of the king where everything he touches turns to gold. But with atheism, everything atheism touches turns to death.

Postmodernism is the age of atheism (well, that may need to be qualifed). It's the apathy of thought.

If there is no objective universal, then no knowledge can take place. For knowledge is fixed. If ones knowledge is not fixed but is flux (atheism), then how do we know that today's truth is not tomorrows lie.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

But even if there was a God for the sake of argument, you wouldn't trust Him anyway right? How you answer this question is philosophically a big deal.

You daddy in the sky thing is ad hominem. He is in the heavens. God is infinite and eternal.

Anyway, you made my point exactly. With Christianity, you have:

Philosophy

Science

Art

Ethics

etc.

With atheism, since all is subjective, including your perspective on reality which is an inference of your subjective observation, thus atheism is like the story of the king where everything he touches turns to gold. But with atheism, everything atheism touches turns to death.

Postmodernism is the age of atheism (well, that may need to be qualifed). It's the apathy of thought.

If there is no objective universal, then no knowledge can take place. For knowledge is fixed. If ones knowledge is not fixed but is flux (atheism), then how do we know that today's truth is not tomorrows lie.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

That'll give me time to work on Woo... a 30 year old green cotton elephant that was literally loved to pieces. A customer wants him repaired for when her son comes home on leave. Awww, isn't that nice? Just add this activity to my list of wicked deeds!

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

You just quoted Romans 2:12-15? Not sure what the question is. It's like If I just quoted the Atheist Debaters Hand Book and quoted the 1st edition that it is dedicated to Lucifer.

Then I say, Sandy, I'm fixing a purple elephant. Get back to me when you can on the 1st edition dedication.

This is kind of what I was explaining to Bob. The law is written on their own hearts in reference to the Imago Dei (the image of God).

This is also a reference indirectly to the heathen. But if you have a specific question about this, please ask. I always like having Bible Studies with atheists.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

That'll give me time to work on Woo... a 30 year old green cotton elephant that was literally loved to pieces. A customer wants him repaired for when her son comes home on leave. Awww, isn't that nice? Just add this activity to my list of wicked deeds!

You're only doing it to make money to buy drugs and ten year old sex slaves. Filthy heathen!

You just quoted Romans 2:12-15? Not sure what the question is. It's like If I just quoted the Atheist Debaters Hand Book and quoted the 1st edition that it is dedicated to Lucifer.

Then I say, Sandy, I'm fixing a purple elephant. Get back to me when you can on the 1st edition dedication.

This is kind of what I was explaining to Bob. The law is written on their own hearts in reference to the Imago Dei (the image of God).

This is also a reference indirectly to the heathen. But if you have a specific question about this, please ask. I always like having Bible Studies with atheists.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

What country are you from? I ask because something is getting lost in the translation.

Romans 2 clearly states that those 'who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law'. So, an atheist who adheres to the laws of Nature and those of the State is just as righteous as one who obeys the law of the bible. Having religion and a belief in god does not automatically make one righteous... just as a lack of belief does not make one evil.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

You just quoted Romans 2:12-15? Not sure what the question is. It's like If I just quoted the Atheist Debaters Hand Book and quoted the 1st edition that it is dedicated to Lucifer.

Then I say, Sandy, I'm fixing a purple elephant. Get back to me when you can on the 1st edition dedication.

This is kind of what I was explaining to Bob. The law is written on their own hearts in reference to the Imago Dei (the image of God).

This is also a reference indirectly to the heathen. But if you have a specific question about this, please ask. I always like having Bible Studies with atheists.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

What country are you from? I ask because something is getting lost in the translation.

Romans 2 clearly states that those 'who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law'. So, an atheist who adheres to the laws of Nature and those of the State is just as righteous as one who obeys the law of the bible. Having religion and a belief in god does not automatically make one righteous... just as a lack of belief does not make one evil.

Sandy, you also have to realize that Jean no longer has to follow the law of God. Paul writes this in Romans 4.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Paul is not talking about the laws of nature, like gravity. LOL. He's talking about the levitical law. Paul is saying that if the Jews were judged under the law, then can one say the gentiles were NOT judged and found guilty under the law since they had no law. NO, because the law was written on their hearts.

This is a historical reference.

And Paul here is showing the absurdity of boasting under the law:

We read in 2:28

28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

You've completely taken this out of context.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Everything you do is meaningless. Your little purple elephant is without purpose. Your life is garbage. You are like a dirty diaper in the trash.

This is atheism. Christianity says that you are meaningful, and do have purpose with purple elephants. And that everything is for a reason.

So, if you wish to continue believing in a systemt that denotes you as a worthless piece of trash go ahead. To think otherwise is dillusional according to your system.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

You're just flotsam on the sea of reality Jean, you say so yourself. I don't see your worldview as valuing human life any more than a materialistic one. God doesn't care, Satan doesn't care, nothing we do here on this Earth matters to anyone.

Everything you do is meaningless. Your little purple elephant is without purpose. Your life is garbage. You are like a dirty diaper in the trash.

This is atheism. Christianity says that you are meaningful, and do have purpose with purple elephants. And that everything is for a reason.

So, if you wish to continue believing in a systemt that denotes you as a worthless piece of trash go ahead. To think otherwise is dillusional according to your system.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Paul also meant that you are no longer bound by God's law. Calvinism renders life meaningless because you can't do anything to change what you believe is the most important thing (where you spend your afterlife).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

That's where you're wrong. Everything you do you will be accountable for someday. God wants you to obey Him and Trust in Him alone.

For we do not lean on our own understanding and strength, but from God's understanding and strength.

Do this, and you will have peace and be loved like never before.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

You have a choice. Obey or Disobey. you clearly choose disobey, and thus shall meet God's wrath soon enough.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

You have a choice. Obey or Disobey. you clearly choose disobey, and thus shall meet God's wrath soon enough.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Sure.

IF there is a God such as you believe in, there is no actual morality, ethics, just a set of rules.

But your position is conflicted, since all but the already elected are to be punished any way.

Could you clarify - if an 'elect' disobeys, will they be punished, or are they, by definition, not capable of dsobeying?

How can we 'choose ' to disobey if we have no free will? Otherwise, if we are pre-programmed to disobey, why does God go through the farce of expressing his 'wrath'? What is the point? He created us just to get his rocks off watching us burn, while he parties on with his 'elect'... I guess.

He is more 'fallen' than we are. Or perhaps he created us just to show that 'perfect' beings are an impossibility.

Like I said before, all these God concepts have unresolvable difficulties and contradictions when you try to analyse them from an ethical standpoint.

1) Ethics by definition is based on a normative. So murder is wrong. If you were on your own Island, called Bobby Island, and some guy ticked you off and you murdered him, you wouldn't think it was wrong. But it is.

2) Elect Disobey Question, There is a difference between justification sanctification. The first is done and as a result, the elelct will want to obey and does. That doesn't mean they're perfect. That won't happen until they're with Jesus

3) Free Will is not the absence from choice. However, their choice is bound by their nature.

Bob, these have no difficulties. They all have logical answers. They are difficult for you I suppose, but just because you're having difficulty doesn't mean there's difficulty in reality.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Yes ethics requires a 'normative', the question is how is that standard derived?

'Murder is wrong' is not a good example - 'murder' is defined as "wrongful killing", so it is simply a tautology.

Killing someone for no 'good' reason is wrong. Good reasons could be self-defence, or as the only way to prevent someone committing some very seriously harmful act. That is a far better example, assuming 'good' is defined and clarified by more such examples.

If someone is in distress, and has decided and repeatedly declared that they would prefer to end it all, killing them is not necessarily wrong. Neither is the related act of euthanasia. Neither are absolutely clear, but absolutes are a fantasy in this area.

In the area of ethics and morals, religion only confuses and corrupts things.

=============

As I figured, you have to dance around the idea of obedience, and the ability to disobey, or even the ability to choose to obey or disobey, and so on.

That whole area presupposes your ground assertions, so going into that any further seems fruitless. The 'problem' has been around so ling that I expect you to have a form of words which you will assert is an answer, and if it makes no sense to me, that's my problem.

Meh..

=============

Your statement on Free will ultimately supports my stance - all meaningful choices are based, among other things, on 'our nature', ie, they are determined.

=============

I do appreciate a more considered response, virtually free of those unnecessary and irrational outbursts against 'atheism'

Thanks for the update, but fiction is not needed to state the obvious. There would be no species if we defaulted to murder. Our evolutionary drive is to create offspring, so if we murder, that is less opportunity for the species to continue.

BUT just like rival ant and bee colonies, Killing outsiders preserves the tribe. Unlike you I do not see our species as outside biological life or an apex handed down by a fictional super hero. We compete for resources just like any other species on the planet, and we do some pretty horrible things to each other to get those resources.

Murder is construct in a given tribe as an agreement not to kill ones own. This natural evolutionary trait existed long before your myth club existed.

There is a difference between murder and killing. We do not call self defense murder, but it is killing.

Murder exists, not because humans want it affecting them, but because it is observed in nature.

A male lion will protect it's teritory and MURDER rival cubs. It is doing such, not because of your retarded version of a man with a pitch fork. It does this naturally because it doesn't want any competition to it's genes. But it will not murder it's own offspring.

Your fictional sky spook is not needed to explain reality.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Hey Brian, ever since I confronted you about your dad's death as the reaction of your atheism, you've been a lot nicer to me. I don't think I've seen you use the F word since then.

I think you kind of like me and now you want to have a beer with me more then ever?

I'm sorry your dad, died, but that is not an excuse for you to be an atheist.

Regarding murder, Bob, it is not tautological since killing and murder has a distinction in Christianity. It's odd that you agree with me on this. Perhaps you are of the elect? who knows.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

For there to be worth, there must be a universal objective. Since atheism fails at universals, then atheism has no objectives. Thus you are a piece of garbage since you have no meaning, purpose, or worth in atheism.

Only in Chrisitanity via universal objectives can we say you have worth. You can have all the fantasy you want about your egocentric worldview, but it is , what it is. Evil, selfish, and worthless.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

For there to be worth, there must be a universal objective. Since atheism fails at universals, then atheism has no objectives. Thus you are a piece of garbage since you have no meaning, purpose, or worth in atheism.

Only in Chrisitanity via universal objectives can we say you have worth. You can have all the fantasy you want about your egocentric worldview, but it is , what it is. Evil, selfish, and worthless.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Christianity has no universal objectives. You can do what feels good to you as long as you get forgiveness after each time

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Worth? I suppose, with the caveat that the vast majority of humanity is 'worth' less than nothing. In fact they are held in such low regard by their creator that they must be punished.

In any case, even those who are worth more than nothing did not come about that value by their own merit, rather they had that value applied to them by an external force lacking human moral capacity.

Again, I don't see anything about that worldview that is laudable. It seems worse than the most nihilistic materialism. At least nihilists stop at declaring existence to be worthless, your idea goes the extra step and declares existence to be evil. Yikes.

I'm sure that will be a nice warm blanket while you're roasting in Hell, Jean. You know, at least God *cares*

Thus you are a piece of garbage since you have no meaning, purpose, or worth in atheism.

And this is supposed to appeal to us to buy the product you are trying to sell us?

We give our own lives meaning, we don't need a fictional cosmic child beater like you do to tell us what our meaning should be. We are adults, you are stuck in fantasy land.

You are the only piece of garbage here.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37